The whole "this is a little contributor compared to X" argument is used by just about everyone who doesn't want to change. Australia was mentioned by an Australian earlier in the thread. True, Australia, as a whole, isn't a huge compared to say the USA or China but that isn't the whole story.
Comparing Australian, UK, USA and China:
Australia: 2017 produced 1.08% of world CO2 which was an increase of 46% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 16.5 tonnes CO2/yr
UK: 2017 produced 1.02% of world CO2 which was a reduction of 35.6% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 5.7 tonnes CO2/yr
USA: 2017 produced 13.77% of world CO2 which was an increase of 0.4% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 15.7 tonnes CO2/yr
China: 2017 produced 29.34% of world CO2 which was an increase of 353.8% on 1990's output. 2017 per capita: 7.7 tonnes CO2/yr
The per capita figures are the interesting comparison, in my opinion. Politicians will point out that China is a much bigger producer than the USA or Australia and thus the US and Australia shouldn't be targeted. But per capita, the US and Australia are "baddies". Not saying China or the UK are "goodies" by the way, as everyone can easily reduce some of their output without big changes to their lifestyles. This is just pointing out how easily it is target based on one figure - I'm coming to this from an F1 perspective, honest.
It makes me think that CO2 should be given a personal budget - everyone gets, say, 5 tonnes / yr and how you "spend" that is up to you. Trading is allowed so if I'm a really good "goodie" I can sell a couple of tonnes to you. I have absolutely no idea how such a system would be implemented, of course, because I'm thinking on my feet here. But it would make individuals more aware of their own personal impact. Looking at global CO2 production for 2017 and current population, the current worldwide per capita output is about 4.8 tonnes CO2 / yr. Of course, fully two thirds of all CO2 is produced by 10 countries, so for most of the world's population the actual output figure is much less than that. But that's humanity's per capita production: 4.8 tonnes / year.
Going on from that to F1, F1 needs to show that its per capita output isn't an issue. This can't just be based on the team members, of course, as they would be well over 100 tonnes / person for the season. But spread the "cost" over the viewing population of several million (hundreds of million?) and we're down to maybe 1kg CO2 / person / season. If F1 argued that people sitting watching their TV for 2 hours instead of driving their own cars to the mall (or wherever) was less polluting, then that would be a powerful riposte to those who say "F1 is killing the planet". See, I said I'd get to F1 eventually.
(figures used sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _emissions
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"